Debating the Obama Defense Cuts

Recently, the President announced $487B in defense spending cuts over the next 10 years. Meanwhile an additional $500B could be coming from Congress next year after the deficit supercommitee failed to reach an agreement on debt reduction. This debate seeks to determine if the US can afford to cut spending at a time when defense budgets are already on the chopping block. Still recovering from a severe economic recession and two military misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, Americans are noticeably weary of spending money on overseas intervention. But should we be? And more importantly, can the US afford to pursue this course of action?

Posted by Stephen (1/12/12):

I'd like to start this week's debate by using my six years of Latin. "Si vis pacem, para bellum" which translates to "If you wish for peace, prepare for war". I'd also like to observe that the periods of time where wealth, science and culture flourished were also periods where a state completely dominated the known world militarily. Examples including the Pax Romana, the early Muslim Caliphates, the Pax Britannica and then the Pax Americana. Therefore, my argument essentially becomes that the US must maintain the sole military superpower for both itself and the world. Thus, if defense budget cuts would hamper our ability to maintain this Pax Americana, then they are something we cannot afford.

My first argument is that the US has an obligation to protect its people. This is a basic tenet of our government, outlined in the Preamble to the Constitution. Thus, the Defense cuts were shown to limit the government's ability to do so, it would fail my basic test. I believe that the 10-15% reduction in our Army and Marine Corps outlined in President Obama's plan will harm our ability to protect Americans and their interests. While we do not face threat of attack by an invading army, there still exist terrorists who wish to do us harm. According to the White House's own admissions the troop reductions will not allow us to participate in two simultaneous major wars.

More after the jump...



Second, the US has an obligation to protect American interests. This is primarily exercised in protecting shipping lanes, having the muscle to enforce trade agreements, and protecting US assets abroad. With the budget cuts will come warship and airship reductions. This will reduce our ability to project shipping lanes which are already under siege from pirates. Last year, ransoms alone cost $250M while counter-piracy measures cost $12B. Furthermore, observers see piracy rising in 2012. Then there are issues of Iran threatening to close the Straits of Hormuz, which would spike the price of oil and do vast economic damage to a still fragile US recovery and recessionary Europe.

Third, the US has an obligation to protect its allies. We are contractually obligated to defend Europe, Japan, Korea and Taiwan. Meanwhile, we also should protect our allies in Israel, Australia, Latin America, the Middle East and Southeast Asia - to say nothing of those who would become our allies but are currently oppressed in nations that are our enemies (I'm looking at you Libya, Syria, former Soviet Union -- though, yes, they are free but under constant threat from Russian dominance).

Finally, while you might say "let the UN handle it!" or the international system can protect US assets, it must be said: this system only works because it has US backing and therefore muscle. So if you like the current international system, then you should like US military spending.

Notice, I didn't even have to mention the rise of China. But that's an entire reason in itself to maintain a strong defense budget.

****
Posted by Matt (1/17/12):

I must say - it certainly is great to hear conservatives freak out over the idea that defense might need to get cut along with everything else in a time of fiscal austerity. My counterpart, who if he agrees with most Republicans believes that cuts in discretionary domestic spending, and maybe even the evisceration of Medicare into a private voucher system, are necessary to improve our country's long-term fiscal picture, can somehow simultaneously argue with a straight face that we cannot afford to cut defense spending even though every other function of our government is currently on the chopping block.

What President Obama has laid on the table is a sensible, long-term strategy that accounts for the challenges and potential dangers of an uncertain world while trimming what is unquestionably a bloated defense budget. But the Obama plan does not resemble the indiscriminate meat cleaver approach that conservatives advocate bringing to government agencies that don't involve fighting wars. Instead it is a broad, pragmatic re-thinking of the military's mission in a changing world that doesn't just cut spending for the sake of cutting spending but shifts our broad foreign policy focus from Europe to Asia and re-imagines how the U.S. might achieve its national defense objectives in the 21st century.

Stephen seems to lament that the defense reductions "will not allow us to participate in two simultaneous major wars" - I would argue that's a good thing. Take your pick: tax cuts or endless war. With trillions in budget deficits, we certainly can no longer have both.

Yes there are terrorists in the world. But the United States has nearly dismantled al Qaeda under Obama's watch not by engaging in any new military adventures, but by leveraging the power of international alliances and using our special forces strategically (think of the bin Laden raid). You don't need to fight a big war to make these things possible.

And before you tell me I hate American power and would rather leave everything up to the UN, let me clarify that I think international ties should be cultivated in every possible circumstance but absolutely not relied upon solely. We do need a strong US presence in the world. But you'll have a hard time convincing me that $487 billion in defense cuts over TEN years - which averages out to less than $50 billion per year, or less than 8 percent of the amount we spent on defense in fiscal year 2012 - seriously hampers our ability to maintain our overall military strength.

These are modest defense cuts that help to reduce our budget deficit so we can instead make needed investments in our domestic future. Like most other things Obama has done, they represent a moderate, pragmatic approach intended to help our country compete better in the long term.

****
Posted by Stephen (1/18/12):

Let's look at how this debate has shaped up so far. I outlined three obligations the US has, and worries that the US will no longer be able to fulfill these obligations. The US government has a Constitutional obligation to its citizen's and their interests, and a contractual obligation to protect our allies.

His argument fails, again, to address any of my concerns and essentially argues: we need to cut spending, welfare is good because it helps people (who mostly refuse to be productive, but that's another debate), and we don't like war anyway, so cutting defense tackles both of this and is therefore a good idea. By reading Matt's response, you'd think defense spending, historically low as a percentage of GDP, was bankrupting our economy (that'd be welfare spending -- just look at Europe, it's not defense spending bankrupt the PIIGS). Yet Defense (something we actually form governments to provide), makes up just 19.27% of the proposed 2012 budget. Meanwhile, the failed programs that continue to drain the US economy of wealth -- welfare and social safety needs that do not pay for themselves -- make up a whopping 57.14%! If 8% is such a minuscule amount, Matt, why not slice that off the welfare portion of the budget? We'd get a nice $169B!

So I leave you by asking you two questions: Do you believe the US government has an obligation to its people and their interests? To our contractual allies? If you do, you cannot support Matt, for his side will leave us unable to do so.

Is the decline of US power, the decay of our world system of democracy and free trade, worth more to you than free government hand outs? If so, you cannot accept Matt's proposal.

****
Posted by Matt (1/19/12):

Well first of all let's just clarify that these defense cuts aren't my proposal - they're coming from the President of the United States, in consultation with his top generals, Joint Chiefs of Staff, and other key military officials who have access to a lot more intelligence information than either of us do. And let's also not forget that these cuts are an extension of rollbacks started under former Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who also oversaw such radical leftist exercises as the Iraq War surge.

Secondly, it should be implicit in my first response that in supporting the cuts, I don't think that they will have a negative impact on our government's core responsibilities to insure the safety of our country's people, interests, and allies. More power to you if you're one of those conservatives who thinks that our country needs to be perpetually at war in order to protect itself. I don't happen to agree. And fortunately for our country, our President and his top military decision-makers don't seem to agree either. As I argued in my first post - I don't support this plan because it simply cuts the defense budget for the sake of cutting it. I support it because it's smart government that attempts to make the best use of our ample defense resources while acknowledging that maintaining the kind of military spending we had under President Bush isn't sustainable in the long term.

If you're like Stephen and believe that every government expenditure that doesn't involve tax cuts or going to war represents welfare for lazy, unproductive, people, I'm probably not going to have much success selling you on the idea of smart government investments that make our country more competitive in the long term. But liberals like myself believe that our country is most successful when we have a middle class that can afford to consume what our economy is capable of producing, thus forming a strong foundation for economic growth. If modest defense cuts can make it easier for government to get back on its fiscal feet and re-invest that money at home, they make all the sense in the world.

****
Posted by Stephen (1/20/12):

So in this post, I'm going to summarize what this debate comes down to. But first I'll refute the only point Matt has made in his response: "people in charge said it would be fine, therefore it must be true." I'm not going to bother with the hypocrisy of this statement, but I'll give it three responses. First, Obama has already shown his ideological convictions against American power and military might. Second, the fact that we cannot fight two major wars at the same time is the administration's own admission, not my assertion. Apparently, Matt doesn't get that just because we can fight two wars doesn't meant we always have to. Third, it's not like high level generals have ever been dismissed for openly criticizing Obama.

Now to summarize. This debate comes down to protecting American power, which is the only way for the American government to uphold the obligations I've set out in my opening remarks. I believe cutting defense has eroded our power, which though great is under siege from extremists, the Iranians and the Chinese. So this debate comes down to this: if you like all the things Matt likes (a prosperous middle class), then you also require global stability, free trade and the protection of American property overseas. So basically if you like those things, like Matt, you cannot support Matt, since his position would weaken our ability to have that.

I'll end this debate the way I started it, if you want peace you must prepare for war. Remember, the periods of history that have seen the greatest creation of wealth are also periods where a hegemonic power existed to ensure global stability and free trade. We are that power, and cutting defense will erode that stability and that prosperity Matt and I so cherish.

****
Posted by Matt (1/21/11):

Before I can go any further I need to throw some ice cold water on my opponent's ridiculous assertion that "Obama has shown his ideological convictions against American power and military might." I guess if you read the Wall Street Journal editorial page enough you can believe anything. But it's this sort of thing that makes me wonder whether conservatives have been living under a rock for the last three years. In not quite one four-year term, President Obama has escalated the war in Afghanistan, defended going to war while accepting the Nobel Peace Prize, involved the US in the Libyan military intervention, and authorized at least two daring covert missions: one to rescue an American captain from Somali Pirates in 2009, the second - made against the recommendation of his Vice President and top general - to kill America's number one sworn enemy. What else does the man have to do?

I'm pretty sure I've made my case clear: the Obama cuts are a drop in the bucket of overall defense spending (less than $50 billion per year over 10 years), and are part of a broader strategy to refocus our foreign policy and honor America's obligations to its people and allies while cutting our budget deficit. Stephen thinks that the trifecta of Iran, China, and isolated extremists makes this a dangerous decision. Considering the fact that al Qaeda has been severely weakened since Obama took office, Iran is increasingly isolated in the international community, and China has yet to show any particular inclination toward aggressive military action, I disagree.

I don't think $50 billion per year will have much of an effect on global stability and free trade, since the biggest threat to the world economy in the last year was not in foreign affairs but in the extremist Republican Party's refusal to raise the federal debt ceiling and insure that America honor its financial obligations. The biggest threat to American strength, power and influence in the long term is not a modest cut in defense spending but the erosion of our formerly vibrant middle class. We need to reinvest our money at home.

In conclusion, since Stephen opened this debate with a quote, I'll close it with one: "You can bomb the world into pieces, but you can't bomb it into peace."